AHP LandZoning PDF

AHP and Land Zoning
decision
Muhamad Buce Saleh

Tatang Tiryana
Department of Forest Management

Faculty of Forestry IPB
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHP

Oleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
Material Discussion
Basic Decision Theory
Basic Theory of AHP
Case Study on Land use planning in Puncak

Bogor

Material 1:
Basic Decision Theory

Decision urgencies.
For humans life:

Facing the problems:
Gap between the real and hopes
Generally the problems are complicated,
The resources always limited for solving the
problems,
Then decision should be made even if we
do nothing is a decision

Ways of explaining reality
Sea Snow
Phenomenon

MODEL Limitation
Characters of MODEL:
1. Generality
2. Precision
3. Reliable
In general a model only fulfilled 2

among 3 characters model above

Decision urgencies (2)
Examples:
How to chose the best school for our
children?
How to chose our vehicles? Which one I have
etc? to chose ???

Decision urgencies(3)
Decision are not easy, because of:
The problems are really complicated
The limitation of humans brain
Non-linear utilities:
Rating sale
Cost of promotion (Rp)
Most of the criteria are contradictive or conflicting
For example: we want a good car but cheap ????
Measurement technique are difficult:
We should combine the data with difference scale
No scale for qualitative factors
How to implement decision?
Stages of decision (Herbert Simon, 1960):

Intelligence Are there any problems?
Design Are there any solution?
Choice Which Alternative solution to chose?
Implementation Are the choices effective?

A common use in decision
Usually decision made by method:
BOGSAT (a Bunch of Old Guys/Gals
Sitting Around Talking)
Procedural stages:
Collecting the data/information,
Analyzing the data/information,
Discussing
Take a Decision

A common use in decision(2)
weaknesses of BOGSAT:
Dominated by only a few people
Ignore the cognitive limitation:
BOGSAT have to discussed many thing in one time (e.g.
problem, alternatives, goal, criteria, etc),
Though human brain have a limited capacity (up to 7 items)
There is a satisfying principles, only concern with the
alternatives which proposed aspiration of the group:
Limited to find more information for evaluate other
alternatives
Sumber: Forman & Selly (2002)

Decision theories development other
subjects:

Foundation of a decision
Value System: a belief that used in natural resources

management with or without consciousness
Efficiency
Precautionary
Equity
Preference: a knowledge, experiences, etc
Time Preference
Risk Preference
Information: data or information that we have
Quantitative/qualitative
Type of data: nominal, ordinal, cardinal, ratio2

Decision Framework
Compatibility with/usability of decision principles in DAFs: weak but not impossible; + possible but not central; * essential
essential feature of DAF
Level of application: G = Global; I=Inter/Supra-
I=Inter/Supra-national; N=National; R = Regional/Sectoral (Sub-
(Sub-national); L=Local (community); M = Micro (Family,
firm, farm); X = All
Typical domain of application: D=Direct intervention; I=Indirect
I=Indirect influence; B=Both
Uncertainty treatment: Rigor: * high; + good; moderate/low
Form: St=Model structure; SA=Sensitivity analysis; Sc=Scenarios
Sc=Scenarios
Source: Joseph Alcamo [et al.]. 2003.

Decision Situation (ADAPTED FROM EPA, 2000; STERN &
FINEBERG, 1996; KRNV & THISSEN, 2000).

History of Decision Theory

Measurement Techniques in Decision
Ranking
Rating
Pairwise comparison
Utility theory
Probability Theory
Posterior/Subjective probability (Bayesian)
Dempster-Shafer
Fuzzy

Data as source of decision
Decision based on data/information,
But, be careful on data.!!!
Human Population : 5000
Animal Population : 750
Area : 1250
Total : 7000
Number not always as it is - seen !

Measurement Scale
What kind of analysis?
Ratio
Interval 60
Ordinal
Nominal Human
weight
Number of 6
9 Performance
runner 5
rating on
Ranking scale 0 - 10
1
2 3 winner
Measurement Scale(2)
What operation should be done with
number!!!
Mathematical
Scale
Operation
Nominal Ordinal Interval Ratio
+/- No No Yes Yes
x/: No No Yes Yes
Mathematical
- - Y=aX+b Y=aX
Function

Decision Method
Popular Decision Method PK : Multi-criteria
decision making (MCDM)
Consisted of 2 groups:
MODM (multi-objective decision making):
Decision space is continue
Alternatives choices based on several objectives that are
conflicting
MADM (multi-attibute decision making):
Decision space is discrete (alternatives is limited and have
determined before)
Alternatives choices based on attributes (criteria) which are
conflicting for a certain goal

MADM method classification
) Yoon & Hwang (1995)

Characteristics of MADM
Alternatives:
Several action that will be prioritized
Number of action limited
Multi Attribute (goals, criteria):
Used for evaluating the alternatives
Each problem has specific attribute:
Examples when we chose the car: price, comfort ability,
safety, etc.
Measurement scale are different.

Characteristic of MADM(2)
Weight for attributes:
Relative Important level for each attributes
Can be determined directly or using a certain
method (example: pairwise comparison AHP)
Decision Matrix:
column represent attributes
row represent alternatives

How to conduct MADM ?
3 stages :
1) Determined the relevant criteria and
alternatives
2) Used numerical scale for relative important
level of criteria and alternatives
3) Calculated and Analysis the numerical values
to determined priority/ranking of alternatives

Material 2:
Basic Theory of AHP

AHP?
Introduced and developed by Dr.
Thomas L. Saaty at early 1970 period
One of MCDA methods which
explained a complicated problem
through a simple way as follow:
Structurized the problem into
hierarchical form
Put a numerical value to determined
important level for one element compare
with other element
Synthesizing to get priority of
alternatives solution

Basic concept AHP
Decomposition : put the problem into
hierarchical form
Priority determination through pairwise
comparison
Priority Synthesizing
Evaluate inconsistency

Why AHP?
Helpful in organizing the elements of problem
into a hierarchy form:
Fit with human natural thinking to analyzed a
complex problem
Determination of important level conducted
carefully:
Pairwise comparison more intuitive
Integration of qualitative and quantitative data:
qualitative: judgment, preference
quantitative: measurement result (e.g. price, cost,
etc)

AHP Procedure
1. Problem definition
2. Organized elements of problem into
hierarchy
3. Assessment the criteria and
alternatives
4. Determined the relative priority
5. Evaluated consistency index
6. Synthesis the alternatives priority
1. Problem definition
Problem:
Gap between the recent condition (what
is) and the expectation (what should be)
Problem Identification:
What goal/objectives should be achieved?
What criteria and sub-criteria which are
suitable?
What are alternatives solution?

2. Hierarchy framing
Basic Structure AHP:
Goal
Goal Goal
Goal
Criteria
Criteria K1
K1 K2
K2 K3
K3 K4
K4
A1
A1 A1
A1 A1
A1 A1
A1
Alternatives
Alternatives
A2
A2 A2
A2 A2
A2 A2
A2
A3
A3 A3
A3 A3
A3 A3
A3

2. Hierarchy framing (2)
Structure expanded:
Goal Goal
Scenario Actor
Criteria & Criteria &

Sub-criteria Sub-criteria
Alternatives Alternatives

Generally there are 2 models of AHP:
1. Relative measurement model:
If alternative solution has known exactly
(maximum 9 alternative), then
Alternatives can be compared one to others
directly
Example: choice 3 alternative cars
2. Absolute measurement model:
If alternative solution has not known well or
might be the number is too many
Alternatives rated by a certain standard
Example: - rating model for student selection
Example of relative model:
Goal The
Thebest
bestcar
carfor
forfamily
family
Goal
Criteria Price
Price Prestige
Prestige Multiuse
Multiuse
Criteria
Alternative
Alternative Toyota
Toyota Suzuki
Suzuki
BMW
BMW Kijang
Kijang Karimun
Karimun

Example absolute model:
Goal The
Thebest
bestcar
carfor
forfamily
family
Goal
Criteria Price
Price Prestige
Prestige Multiuse
Multiuse
Criteria
Intensity
IntensityScale
Scale Cheap
Cheap Expens
Expens Low
Low Medium
Medium High
High Less
Less More
More
Alternative
Alternative
Alternative
Alternative (all
(alltype
typeand
andtrade
trademark
markin
inmarket)
market)
Struktur hierarki PHTL LEI: model rating
Pengelolaan Hutan
TUJUAN
Tanaman Lestari (PHTL)
Kelestarian Fungsi
Kelestarian Fungsi Kelestarian Fungsi
PRINSIP Sosial Ekonomi dan
Produksi Ekologi/Lingkungan
Budaya
Kelestarian Kelestarian Kelestarian Kelestarian Kelestarian

Kelestarian Kelestarian Kelestarian
KRITERIA Kualitas Keanekaragaman Akses & Kontrol Integrasi Sosial Hubungan
Sumberdaya Hasil Hutan Usaha
Lahan dan Air Hayati Komuniti dan Budaya Tenaga Kerja
Keterangan :
PROSES MK MH PK
MK : Manajemen Kawasan
MH : Manajemen Hutan
PK : Penataan
Kelembagaan
Pm-K : Pemantapan Kawasan
SUB-PROSES Pm-K Pn-K Pg-K KP KL KS PO PSDM MKeu Pn-K : Penataan Kawasan
Pg-K : Pengamanan Kawasan
KP : Kelola Produksi
KL : Kelola Lingkungan
KS : Kelola Sosial
INDIKATOR PO : Penataan Organisasi
INDIKATOR PSDM : Peningkatan
Sumberdaya Manusia
MKeu : Manajemen
Keuangan
NILAI (SKALA INTENSITAS)
NILAI (SKALA INTENSITAS)
3. Criteria and Alternative assessment
Conducted for each hierarchy level to

determined the relative important value
between one and other element
Pairwise comparison used:
Data (measurement results), or generally
used
Scale 1-9

3. Criteria and Alternative assessment (2)
Value Statement
1 Criteria/alternative A and B equally
important
3 A little more important than B
5 A clearly more important than B
7 A very clearly more important than B
9 A absolutely more important than B
2,4,6,8 If feel hesitated between two close values
Reciprocal value (1/3, 1/5,) used if B more important than A

Assessment results put on pairwise comparison

matrix (PCM)
Example PCM (1): criteria level
Which criteria is more important and how much
important?
Criteria Price Multiuse Prestige
Price 1 3 4
Multiuse 1/3 1 2
Prestige 1/4 1/2 1

Example PCM (2): alternative level

From prestige aspect, which car more important and
how much important?
Prestige BMW Kijang Karimun
BMW 1 3 7
Kijang 1/3 1 5
Karimun 1/7 1/5 1
If n element, then the total number of

comparison: n(n-1)/2
Interruption!!!
If only determined the weight,
why we should use pairwise But why 0,4? Why not
comparison? 0,45?
I think easier to determined Then here in AHP,
directly such as for example: when determined the
0,4?? weight not
careless!!!
it is better to be
approximately
right than
precisely wrong

3. Criteria and Alternative assessment(5)
How if assessment conducted by group?

Better if group made a consensus:
Discussion and argues should be done before
coming with one value
Value based on consensus used in PCM
OK, we deal with

that price is 3 time
more important
than prestige..!!!

How if there is no consensus among the

group?
Used mean geometric from individual
assessment:
Example: A=2B x = n x1.x2....xn
A=3B
A=7B Mean-geo: A = 3,8B
A=5B x = 4 (2).(3).(5).(7) = 3,8

4. Priority determination
Each element (criteria, alternative) in
hierarchy has relative weight:
To show priority/important relatively
Weight get from PCM:
Calculate eigen value (eigenvector)

4. Priority determination (2)
Calculation methods (eigen value):

According to Saaty: power method
Procedure:
Squared the matrix
Calculate sum of number for each row, then
normalized (divided by total sum)
Iterated until we get the deviation value between
two iteration is very small (not change in 4
decimal)

Example weight:
Criteria Price Multiuse Prestige
1 3 4
Price 1 3 4 0,33 1 2

PCM
Multiuse 1/3 1 2
Prestige 1/4 1/2 1 0, 25 0,5 1
Iteration -1:
Squared PCM:
1,000 3,000 4,000 1,000 3,000 4,000 3,000 8,000 14,000
0,333 1,000 2,000 x 0,333 1,000 2,000 = 1,167 3,000 5,333

0,250 0,500 1,000 0,250 0,500 1,000 0,667 1,750 3,000

Iteration 1:
Summed value of each row and normalized:
Sum row normalized
3,0000 8,0000 14,0000 25,0000 25,0000/39,9167 = 0,6263
1,1667 3,0000 5,3333 9,5000 9,5000/39,9167 = 0,2380

0,6667 1,7500 3,0000 5,4167 5,4167/39,9167 = 0,1357
Sum: 39,9167
So, eigen value from iteration -1:

0,6263, 0,2380, 0,1357

Iteration-2:
Again squared the matrix from iteration -1:
3,0000 8,0000 14,0000 3,0000 8,0000 14,0000
1,1667 3,0000 5,3333 x 1,1667 3,0000 5,3333

0,6667 1,7500 3,0000 0,6667 1,7500 3,0000
27,6667 72,5000 126,6667
= 10,5556 27,6667 48,3333
6,0417 15,8333 27,6667

Iteration-2 :
Summed the value for each row and normalized:
Sum row normalized

27.6667 72.5000 126.6667 226.8334 226,8334/362,9307 = 0,6250
10.5556 27.6667 48.3333 86,5556 86,5556/362,9307 = 0,2385

6.0417 15.8333 27.6667 49,5417 49,5417/362,9307 = 0,1365
Sum : 362,9307
So, eigen value from iteration -2:
0,6250, 0,2385, 0,1365

Now, calculate deviation between eigen value
from iteration-1 and iteration-2:
0, 6263 0, 6250 = 0, 0013
0, 2380 0, 2385 = 0, 0005
0,1357 0,1365 = 0, 0008
Deviation not large until 4 decimal

If iteration-3 continued, we will get the eigen
value not change in 4 decimal:
So, eigen value for criteria level:
0, 6250 Harga
0, 2385 Serbaguna

0,1365 Prestise
That means the most important criteria is price, follow

by multiuse then prestige

Stopstop..!!! Not of course,

Should we calculated Just used the
so complicated like software!!!
this???

5. Consistency evaluation
Are pairwise comparison conducted
consistently?
Consistent: Inconsistent:
A = 2B, B = 3C A = 2B, B = 3C
) A = 6C ) A = 4C
Price > Multiuse, Price > Multiuse,
Multiuse > Prestige Multiuse > Prestige
) Price > Prestige
) ) Price < Prestige
)
Consistency will guaranteed the weight

validity
5. Consistency evaluation (2)
Inconsistency might be happen when:

Wrong entry data
Information not enough
Less concentration
Facts are really not always consistent:
Team A outmatch Team B, and Team B outmatch
Team C, but
May be Team C outmatch Team A

AHP tolerate inconsistency:

Measure by consistency index (CI) dan ratio
consistency (CR):
CI
CR =
RI
Random value (RI):
Good Consistency : CR 0,1

Example consistency evaluation:

Is the assessment consistent?
Criteria Price Multiuse Prestig
e 1 3 4
Price 1 3 4 0,33 1 2
Multiuse 1/3 1 2
PCM

Prestige 1/4 1/2 1
0, 25 0,5 1
From the calculation we have eigen value (priority
vector):
0, 6250 Price
0,2385 Multiuse
0,1365 Prestige
Next Procedure:
Calculate weighted sum vector : multiply matrix with eigen
value (priority vector)
1 3 4 0, 6250 1,8865
0, 33 1 2 x 0, 2385 = 0,7178

0, 25 0, 5 1 0,1365 0,4120
Divide the weight sum vector with priority vector:
1,8865 0, 6250 3, 0184

0,7178 : 0, 2385 = 3, 0096

0,4120 0,1365 3, 0183

Next Procedure:
Calculate maximum eigen value :
(3,0184)+(3,0096)+(3,0183)
max = =3,0154
3
Calculate consistency index (CI):
max n 3, 0154 3
CI = = = 0, 0077
n 1 3 1

Next Procedure:
Calculate consistency ratio (CR):
CI 0, 0077
CR = = = 0, 0132
RI 0,58
(Note: RI value for n=3 we get from table)
Conclusion: assessment of the criteria level was

consistent because CR value < 0,1

Once more feel dizzy?

Just used the software!!!

6. Synthesis Alternative Priority
For example we get relative priority as

follow: Chose Ideal Car Chose Ideal Car
Price
Price Multiuse
Multiuse Prestige
Prestige
(0,625)
(0,625) (0,238)
(0,238) (0,136)
(0,136)
1.
1. Karimun
Karimun(0,648)
(0,648) 1.
1. Kijang
Kijang(0,625)
(0,625) 1.
1. BMW
BMW(0,649)
(0,649)
2. Kijang (0,230)
2. Kijang (0,230) 2.
2. Karimun(0,238)
Karimun (0,238) 2. Kijang (0,279)
2. Kijang (0,279)
3.
3. BMW
BMW(0,122)
(0,122) 3.
3. BMW
BMW(0,136)
(0,136) 3.
3. Karimun
Karimun(0,072)
(0,072)
So, which is car we have to chose???

6. Synthesis Alternative Priority (2)
If we want to get total priority for

alternatives, we have to synthesis:
Combine all relative priority vector
One of the method is weighted summation,
compromise method, etc

6. Synthesis Alternative Priority (3)
Example synthesis:
Weight Criteria
Alternative
Price Multiuse Prestige Priority
Alternative
(0,625) (0,238) (0,136)
BMW 0,122 0,136 0,649 0,197
Kijang 0,230 0,625 0,279 0,333
Karimun 0,648 0,238 0,072 0,470
Calculation:
For BMW: (0,122).(0,625) + (0,136).(0.238) + (0,649).(0.136) = 0,197

6. Synthesis Alternative Priority
(4)
After all, then:
Total Priority level is: Karimun > Kijang >
BMW
Oh I have to chose just
Karimun !!!

Material 3:
Case Study: Implementation
on Land use Planning in
Puncak Area, Bogor

Thank you bu Syar, pa Hadi and pa Lilik !
PENERAPAN MULTI CRITERIA DECISION MAKING

(MCDM) DAN GEOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION
SYSTEM (GIS) PADA EVALUASI PERUNTUKAN
LAHAN
(Studi Kasus: DAS Ciliwung Hulu, Kab. Bogor, Jawa Barat)
By:
SYARTINILIA
Supervisor :
Ir. Hadi Susilo Arifin, MS., Ph. D.
Dr. Ir. Lilik Budi Prasetyo, M.Sc

Province Jawa Barat
Pulau Jawa
#
# # ## #
# #
# ##
# #
# #
# #
#
#
#
# #
#
#
# ##
# ##
## #####
### ##
#
# ###########
# ## # #####
# ##
#
##
##
# #
#
N
Legenda :
0 1 2 3 Kilometers
#
Ground truth point GPS track 2002 Sungai Cilliwung
DAS Ciliwung Hulu, Kabupaten Bogor, Jawa

Barat

Protected Area Criteria
Land suitability for
Protected Area
Slope Elevation Soil River bank Important High Land

Catchment creep area
Area
>40% >2000 m Litosol, Regosol, 100 m both

slope slope side of
> 15% > 15% river
Source : - Ketentuan teknis kawasan lindung dalam RTRW Bopunjur (Bappeda, 2000)
dengan berpedoman pada Keppres No.32 tahun 1990 tentang Pengelolaan
Kawasan Lindung dan SK Gubernur Jawa Barat No. 413.21/SK.222-HUK/91
tentang Kriteria Lokasi dan Standar Teknis Penataan Ruang di Kawasan
Puncak.

Land use Criteria
Slope (%) Elevation) Drainage Land cover
Rice field <3 300-700 slow Forest

3-8 700-1000 Medium-Good Tea estate
9-15 1000-1500 Fast Shrubs
16-25 1500-2000 Dry agriculture
>25 >2000 Rice field
Settlement
Dry land <3 300-700 Medium-Good Forest
3-8 700-1000 Fast Tea estate
agriculture
9-15 1000-1500 Slow Shrubs
16-25 1500-2000 Dry agriculture
>25 >2000 Rice field
Settlement
Estate/ <8 1000-1500 Medium-Good Forest
plantation 8-15 1500-2000 Fast Tea estate
16-25 >2000 Slow Shrubs
>25 Dry agriculture
Rice field
Settlement
Settlement <10 300-700 Good Forest
10-15 700-1000 Medium Tea estate
16-20 1000-1500 Fast Shrubs
>20 1500-2000 Slow Dry agriculture
>2000 Rice field
Settlement
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHP Land suitability for Build up and Cultivation
Oleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana Area
CULTIVATION AREA
Weight and intensity scale: AHP
Land suitability for rice
field
Level 2:
Slope (%) Elevation (m) Drainage Penggunaan/pe
Weight
nutupan lahan
<3 300-700 Slow Forest
3-8 700-1000 Medm-Good Tea estate
9-15 1000-1500 Fast Shrubs

Level 3:
Value
16-25 1500-2000 Ricef
>25 >2000 Dry Agr
Settlement

DRY LAND AGRICULTURE AREA
Kesesuaian lahan untuk
pertanian lahan kering
Level 2 :
Slope (%) Elevasi (m) Drainage Land cover
Bobot
<3 300-700 Baik-sedang Hutan
3-8 700-1000 Cepat Perkebunan teh
9-15 1000-1500 Terhambat Semak belukar

Level 3:
Nilai 16-25 1500-2000 Sawah
>25 >2000 Ladang
Pemukiman

PLANTATION AREA
perkebunan
Level 2 :
Bobot Slope (%) Elevasi (m) Drainage Land cover
<8 1000-1500 Baik Hutan
8-15 1500-2000 Sedang-cepat Perkebunan teh
16-25 >2000 Terhambat Semak belukar

Level 3 :
Nilai >25 Sawah
Ladang
Pemukiman

SETTLEMENT AREA
pemukiman
Level 2 : Slope (%) Elevasi (m) Drainage Land cover

Bobot
< 10 300-700 Baik Hutan
10-15 700-1000 Sedang Perkebunan teh
16-20 1000-1500 Cepat Semak belukar

Level 3 :
Nilai >20 1500-2000 Terhambat Sawah
>2000 Ladang
Pemukiman

Example: weight and intensity scale
for Rice field Area
1.0 B= 0.217 1.0
B= 0.149
0.8 0.8
0.6
Value
0.6
Value
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.0 300-700 700-1000 1000-1500 1500-2000 >2000
<3 % 3-8 % 9-15 % 16-25 % >25 %
Elevasi (m )
Slope
1.0
1.0
B = 0.461 B= 0.172
0.8
0.8
Value 0.6
0.6
Value
0.4
0.4
0.2 0.2
0.0 0.0
Hutan P erkebunan Semak Sawah Ladang P emukiman
Terhambat Sedang-baik Cepat Teh belukar
Drainase Land cover
MODEL SINTHESIS
Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM)
Compromise Programming (CP)
1/ p

( )
I
d p = i p x i* x ik
p

i =1
dp = distance metrics
i = weight for criteria based on preference level, where i> 0, i = 1
x = ideal point p
p = distance parameter, range from 1 to
z We use sensitivity analysis with 3 different values, such as:

p = 1, 2 and (e.g. p>10).
Distance Matrix value calculation
for GIS

Database Spatial
Digital Elevation Model
(DEM)
Slope Aspect

Drainage Land cover

Example: for cultivation area model

Cultivation area Model
Dry land agriculture

Rice field

Settlement
Estate

Cultivation Area with p= 1, 2, 10

THANK YOU FOR BEING DIZZY..
Waaah SO
COMPLICATED!?!?


AHP LandZoning PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

AHP LandZoning PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

AHP and Land Zoning

Muhamad Buce Saleh

Department of Forest Management

Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHP

Basic Theory of AHP

Case Study on Land use planning in Puncak

Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHP

Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHP

For humans life:

Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHP

Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHP

In general a model only fulfilled 2

Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHP

Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHP

Stages of decision (Herbert Simon, 1960):

Design Are there any solution?

Choice Which Alternative solution to chose?

Implementation Are the choices effective?

Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHP

Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHP

Sumber: Forman & Selly (2002)

Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHP

Value System: a belief that used in natural resources

Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHP

Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHP

Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHP

Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHP

Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHP

Number not always as it is - seen !

Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHP

Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHP

Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHP

) Yoon & Hwang (1995)

Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHP

Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHP

Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHP

Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHP

Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHP

Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHP

Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHP

Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHP

Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHP

Criteria & Criteria &

Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHP

Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHP

Kelestarian Kelestarian Kelestarian Kelestarian Kelestarian

Conducted for each hierarchy level to

Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHP

Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHP

Assessment results put on pairwise comparison

Criteria Price Multiuse Prestige

Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHP

Example PCM (2): alternative level

If n element, then the total number of

Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHP

How if assessment conducted by group?

OK, we deal with

Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHP

How if there is no consensus among the

Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHP

Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHP

Calculation methods (eigen value):

Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHP